Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67047 

80 Stat. 1304–05, 83 Stat. 187–89 (15 U.S.C. 

1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107–319, 116 Stat. 2776. 

2. Amend § 1512.2 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (d) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sidewalk bicycle means a bicycle 

with a seat height of no more than 635 

mm (25.0 in); the seat height is 

measured with the seat adjusted to its 

highest position. Recumbent bicycles 

are not included in this definition. 

* * * * * 

(d) Track bicycle means a bicycle 

designed and intended for sale as a 

competitive velodrome machine having 

single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no freewheeling feature between the rear wheel 

and the crank. 

* * * * * 

(g) Recumbent bicycle means a bicycle 

in which the rider sits in a reclined 

position with the feet extended forward 

to the pedals. 

3. Amend § 1512.4 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (i) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.4 Mechanical requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sharp edges. There shall be no 

unfinished sheared metal edges or other 

sharp parts on assembled bicycles that 

are, or may be, exposed to hands or legs; 

sheared metal edges that are not rolled 

shall be finished so as to remove any 

feathering of edges, or any burrs or 

spurs caused during the shearing 

process. 

* * * * * 

(i) Control cable ends. Ends of all 

accessible control cables shall be 

provided with protective caps or 

otherwise treated to prevent unraveling. 

Protective caps shall be tested in 

accordance with the protective cap and 

end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c), 

and shall withstand a pull of 8.9 N (2.0 

lbf). 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 1512.6 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.6 Requirements for steering 

system. 

(a) Handlebar stem insertion mark. 

Quill-type handlebar stems shall 

contain a permanent ring or mark which 

clearly indicates the minimum insertion 

depth of the handlebar stem into the 

fork assembly. The insertion mark shall 

not affect the structural integrity of the 

stem and shall not be less than 21⁄2

times the stem diameter from the lowest 

point of the stem. The stem strength 

shall be maintained for at least a length 

of one shaft diameter below the mark. 

* * * * * 

(c) Handlebar. Handlebars shall allow 

comfortable and safe control of the 

bicycle. Handlebar ends shall be 

symmetrically located with respect to 

the longitudinal axis of the bicycle and 

no more than 406 mm (16 in) above the 

seat surface when the seat is in its 

lowest position and the handlebar ends 

are in their highest position. This 

requirement does not apply to 

recumbent bicycles. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 1512.12 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.12 Requirements for wheel hubs. 

* * * * * 

(b) Quick-release devices. Leveroperated, quick-release devices shall be 

adjustable to allow setting the lever 

position for tightness. Quick-release 

levers shall be clearly visible to the rider 

and shall indicate whether the levers are 

in a locked or unlocked position. Quickrelease clamp action shall emboss the 

frame or fork when locked, except on 

carbon fiber material. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend § 1512.15 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.15 Requirements for seat. 

(a) Seat limitations. No part of the 

seat, seat supports, or accessories 

attached to the seat shall be more than 

125 mm (5.0 in) above the top of the seat 

surface at the point where the seat 

surface is intersected by the seat post 

axis. This requirement does not apply to 

recumbent bicycles. 

(b) Seat post. The seat post shall 

contain a permanent mark or ring that 

clearly indicates the minimum insertion 

depth (maximum seat-height 

adjustment); the mark shall not affect 

the structural integrity of the seat post. 

This mark shall be located no less than 

two seat-post diameters from the lowest 

point on the post shaft, and the post 

strength shall be maintained for at least 

a length of one shaft diameter below the 

mark. This requirement does not apply 

to bicycles with integrated seat masts. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 1512.18 by revising 

paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (n)(2)(vii) as 

follows: 

§ 1512.18 Tests and test procedures. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Procedure. With the fork stem 

supported in a 76 mm (3.0 in) vee block 

and secured by the method illustrated in 

figure 1 of this part 1512, a load shall 

be applied at the axle attachment in a 

direction perpendicular to the 

centerline of the stem and against the 

direction of the rake. Load and 

deflection readings shall be recorded 

and plotted at the point of loading. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) A recommended coordinate 

system for definition of color is the 

‘‘Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE 

1931)’’ system. In the coordinate system 

and when illuminated by the source 

defined in table 4 of this part 1512, a 

reflector will be considered to be red if 

its color falls within the region bounded 

by the red spectrum locus and the lines 

y = 0.980 ¥ x and y = 0.335; a reflector 

will be considered to be amber if its 

color falls within the region bounded by 

the yellow spectrum locus and the lines 

y = 0.382, y = 0.790 ¥ 0.667x, and y = 

x ¥ 0.120. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27503 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1632 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0105] 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is proposing to amend its standard for 

the flammability of mattresses and 

mattress pads. The ignition source 

cigarette specified in the standard for 

use in the mattress standard’s 

performance tests is no longer being 

produced. The Commission is proposing 

to amend the mattress standard to 

require a standard reference material 

cigarette, which was developed by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, as the ignition source for 

testing to the mattress standard. 

DATES: Comments on the proposal 

should be submitted no later than 

January 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0105, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/hand delivery/courier (for paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia K. Adair, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814– 

4408; telephone (301) 504–7536; 

padair@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

1. The Current Standard and the Need 

for Amendment 

The Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads (‘‘the 

Standard’’), 16 CFR part 1632, was 

initially issued by the U.S. Department 

of Commerce in 1972 under the 

authority of the Flammable Fabrics Act 

(‘‘FFA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq. When the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) 

created the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, it transferred to the 

Commission the authority to issue 

flammability standards under the FFA. 

The Standard sets forth a test to 

determine the ignition resistance of a 

mattress or mattress pad when exposed 

to a lighted cigarette. Lighted cigarettes 

are placed at specified locations on the 

surface of a mattress (or mattress pad). 

The Standard establishes pass/fail 

criteria for the tests. The Standard 

currently specifies the ignition source 

for these tests by its physical properties. 

These properties were originally 

selected to represent an unfiltered Pall 

Mall cigarette, which was identified as 

the most severe smoldering ignition 

source. 

In January 2008, CPSC staff learned 

that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 

planned to stop producing unfiltered 

Pall Mall cigarettes (although it would 

continue to make a reduced ignition 

propensity or ‘‘RIP’’ version). The CPSC 

staff, mattress manufacturers, and 

testing organizations were concerned 

about testing to the Standard if the 

specified ignition source cigarettes were 

unavailable. Under an Interagency 

Agreement (‘‘IAG’’) with the CPSC, the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (‘‘NIST’’) developed a 

standard reference material (‘‘SRM’’) 

cigarette that could be used as the 

ignition source in the Standard. 

2. Incident Data 

Recent fire loss estimates for 

mattresses and bedding indicate that 

smoking material ignitions of mattresses 

or bedding lead to a large number of fire 

deaths and injuries. The most recently 

available estimates are from 2005 

through 2007. For that time period, 

there was an estimated annual average 

of 2,100 fires in which smoking 

materials ignited mattresses or bedding. 

These led to an estimated annual 

average of 150 deaths, 350 injuries, and 

$57 million in property loss. 

B. Statutory Provisions 

The FFA sets forth the process by 

which the Commission can issue or 

amend a flammability standard. In 

accordance with those provisions, the 

Commission is proposing to amend the 

Standard to specify the SRM cigarette 

developed by NIST as the ignition 

source to be used for testing under the 

Standard. As required by the FFA, the 

proposed rule contains the text of the 

amendment, alternatives that the 

Commission has considered, and a 

preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 

U.S.C. 1193(i). Before issuing a final 

rule, the Commission must prepare a 

final regulatory analysis and make 

certain findings concerning any relevant 

voluntary standard, the relationship of 

costs and benefits of the rule, and the 

burden imposed by the regulation. Id. 

1193(j). In addition, the Commission 

must find that the standard: (1) Is 

needed to adequately protect the public 

against the risk of the occurrence of fire 

leading to death, injury, or significant 

property damage; (2) is reasonable, 

technologically practicable, and 

appropriate; (3) is limited to fabrics, 

related materials, or products which 

present unreasonable risks; and (4) is 

stated in objective terms. Id. 1193(b). 

The Commission also must provide an 

opportunity for interested persons to 

make an oral presentation concerning 

the rulemaking before the Commission 

may issue a final rule. Id. 1193(d). The 

Commission requests that anyone who 

would like to make an oral presentation 

concerning this rulemaking please 

contact the Commission’s Office of the 

Secretary (see the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice) within 45 days of 

publication of this notice. If the 

Commission receives requests to make 

oral comments, a date will be set for a 

public meeting for that purpose, and 

notice of the meeting will be provided 

in the Federal Register. 

C. Description of the Proposed 

Amendment 

1. NIST’s Research 

Currently, the Standard requires that 

the ignition source for testing mattresses 

‘‘shall be cigarettes without filter tips 

made from natural tobacco, 85 ± 2 mm 

long with a tobacco packing density of 

0.270 ± 0.02 g/cm3 and a total weight of 

1.1 ± 0.1 g.’’ 16 CFR 1632.4(a)(2). This 

specification was intended to describe a 

conventional unfiltered Pall Mall 

cigarette that was available when the 

Standard was developed. This 

specification was chosen in order to 

replicate the most severe smoldering 

ignition source for testing mattresses 

and mattress pads. 

When the CPSC learned in January 

2008 that R.J. Reynolds would be 

stopping production of the unfiltered 

Pall Mall cigarettes, the CPSC sought to 

find an alternate ignition source that 

would have the same burning 

characteristics as the ignition source 

specified in the Standard so that 

mattresses could be tested in accordance 

with the Standard and so that the safety 

level of the Standard would not be 

changed. In August 2008, the CPSC 

entered into an IAG with NIST to 

develop a new cigarette ignition source 

SRM that would have the ignition 

strength of the test cigarette required in 

the Standard. 

There are no cigarette ignition test 

data to characterize the ignition 

propensity of cigarettes from 1972, 

when the Standard was promulgated. In 

the absence of such data, NIST sought 

to identify the highest ignition strength 

cigarette, consistent with the intent of 

the original Standard. NIST evaluated 

Pall Mall cigarettes of different vintages 

(1992 through 2008) to determine the 

ignition strengths of the cigarettes that 

had been used to test soft furnishings, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67049 

such as mattresses. Although SRM 

cigarettes are now becoming available, 

sufficient quantities of previous (1992 

through 2003) cigarettes no longer exist 

to perform any comparative studies of 

ignition propensity. The NIST research 

strongly indicated, however, that the 

SRM is equivalent in ignition strength to 

the previous highest known strength 

unfiltered Pall Mall cigarette. After 

developing a standard procedure for 

determining the ignition strength of 

cigarettes and assessing different vintage 

cigarettes, NIST recommended to CPSC 

staff that the new SRM cigarette meet 

the following specification: 

Æ Nominal length: 83 mm ± 2 mm 

Æ Tobacco packing density: 0.270 g/ 

cm3 ± 0.020g/cm3 

Æ Mass: 1.1 g ± 0.1 g 

Æ Ignition Strength: 70 Percent Full 

Length Burn (PFLB) to 95 PFLB using 

ASTM E 2187, as modified in Section 

4.2 of NIST Technical Note 1627 

Æ Non ‘‘Fire Safe Cigarette’’ (FSC) 

The first three descriptors restate the 

physical requirements listed in the 

Standard for the ignition source. The 

recommended ignition strength range 

reflects the three oldest vintages of the 

Pall Mall cigarette tested by NIST and 

represents a worst-case ignition source. 

In June 2009, NIST provided CPSC 

staff with a report on its research, ‘‘NIST 

Technical Note 1627: Modification of 

ASTM E 2187 for Measuring the Ignition 

Propensity of Conventional Cigarettes’’ 

(Ref. 1). The CPSC used NIST’s research 

described in this report as the basis to 

establish specific parameters for a new 

ignition source specified in the 

Standard. Therefore, the proposed rule 

would amend 16 CFR 1632.4(a)(2) to 

specify the use of an SRM cigarette, 

developed in 2010 based on NIST’s 

research. The new SRM cigarette would 

be designated SRM 1196, and the 

proposed amendment also would state 

that SRM 1196 is available for purchase 

from the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 20899 

2. Issues Raised by Comments on NIST’s 

Report 

The Commission posted NIST 

Technical Note 1627 on its Web site in 

July 2009. The Commission received 

three comments, all from industry trade 

associations. The principal issues raised 

by the comments that are relevant to 

this rulemaking and the Commission’s 

responses are discussed below. 

Comment: Some comments stated that 

the cigarette specified in the Standard 

does not reflect real-world conditions 

and argued that the CPSC should not try 

to replicate it in establishing a new 

ignition source. 

Response: The intent of the Standard 

was not to represent the typical cigarette 

of that time, but to specify a cigarette 

with the highest potential to ignite soft 

furnishings in order to provide a high 

level of safety. The Commission intends 

to specify an ignition source that is 

close to the original specification, to 

maintain the level of safety established 

by the Standard. 

Comment: Some comments noted that 

many States are requiring RIP cigarettes, 

and, because these will be widely in 

use, the ignition source in the Standard 

should be a RIP cigarette. 

Response: The CPSC has no data 

indicating a correlation between the use 

of RIP cigarettes and reduction in fire 

losses where soft furnishings, such as 

mattresses, are the first item to ignite. 

The National Fire Protection 

Association’s (‘‘NFPA’s’’) model State 

legislation calls for testing RIP cigarettes 

in accordance with ASTM standard E 

2187–04, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Measuring the Ignition Strength of 

Cigarettes.’’ This model legislation 

requires that no more than 25 percent of 

cigarettes tested in a trial test burn their 

full length. This means that even with 

full compliance, some RIP cigarettes 

may be expected to burn like non-RIP 

cigarettes. Moreover, only 8 of the 50 

States that have enacted (or soon will 

enact) legislation mandating RIP 

cigarettes require auditing to confirm 

compliance with ASTM E 2187–04. 

Thus, the extent of fire safety gains due 

to RIP cigarettes is uncertain. Under 

these circumstances, specifying a RIP 

cigarette as the ignition source in the 

Standard could reduce the level of fire 

safety provided by the Standard. 

Comment: One comment expressed 

concern about the cost of SRM cigarettes 

for small manufacturers, such as 

upholstery fabric manufacturers. 

Response: As discussed in greater 

detail in the preliminary regulatory 

analysis summarized in section D of this 

preamble, the Commission does not 

anticipate that the cost of SRM 

cigarettes will add significantly to 

testing costs for mattresses. The CPSC 

estimates that using SRM cigarettes at 

up to $245 per carton would increase 

total annual testing costs for mattresses 

by about $70,000 or approximately 10 

percent. The CPSC notes that, for 

mattresses, individual ticking fabrics 

generally are not tested; instead, testing 

of the assembled mattress is usually 

performed by a third party laboratory. 

Also, existing qualified designs and 

constructions of mattresses would not 

have to be retested. 

As for the impact on upholstered 

furniture fabric makers, the cost of SRM 

cigarettes would be one aspect of testing 

costs that the Commission would 

consider in evaluating the costs and 

benefits of an upholstered furniture 

flammability standard in the context of 

that rulemaking. (In the Federal 

Register of March 4, 2008, the 

Commission published a proposed rule 

that would establish flammability 

standards for residential upholstered 

furniture under the FFA (73 FR 11702), 

and CPSC staff is in the process of 

testing and evaluation to support a 

possible final upholstered furniture 

flammability rule.) 

Comment: One comment stated that a 

surrogate equivalent to the discontinued 

non-RIP cigarette is needed quickly, 

given that those materials are no longer 

being produced. The commenter opined 

that to specify a nonequivalent SRM as 

NIST recommends would require the 

CPSC to conduct a lengthy rulemaking 

procedure to amend 16 CFR part 1632. 

Response: The new SRM cigarette is 

designed to be equivalent to the original 

test cigarette. In its report, NIST 

recommended a replacement cigarette 

that is as close as possible to the original 

test cigarette specified in the Standard. 

The purpose of developing the SRM 

cigarette is to enhance repeatability of 

test results without changing the level of 

fire safety provided by the Standard. 

D. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that 

the Commission prepare a preliminary 

regulatory analysis when it proposes to 

issue or amend a flammability standard 

under the FFA and that the analysis be 

published with the proposed rule. 15 

U.S.C. 1193(i). The following discussion 

extracted from the staff’s memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis: Smoldering Ignition Source 

Proposed Technical Amendment to the 

Flammability Standard for Mattresses 

and Mattress Pads (16 CFR Part 1632)’’ 

(Ref. 2) addresses this requirement. 

1. Market/Industry Information 

Domestic manufacturers of mattresses 

and related sleep products (for example, 

mattress pads, box springs, innerspring 

cushions, and air-flotation sleep 

systems) are classified under the 2002 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) in sector code 337910, 

Mattress Manufacturing. This group 

includes firms classified under the 1997 

Standard Industry Classification (SIC) 

category 2515. Available U.S. Economic 

Census data show an estimated total 

value of shipments for this category of 

about $5 billion in recent years. 

Domestic employment is estimated at 

about 20,000 workers. Industry 

estimates indicate that the number of 

mattresses (including unconventional 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

items such as futons, crib and juvenile 

mattresses, and sleep sofa inserts) 

shipped in the United States residential 

market is roughly 25 million units 

annually. About 5 to 10 percent of this 

total is comprised of imported products, 

including some imports marketed by the 

domestic manufacturers. The proportion 

of imports for mattress pads is higher. 

An estimated 150 to 200 domestic 

firms produce new mattresses or 

mattress pads in manufacturing 

facilities in the United States. An 

unknown but potentially similar 

number of firms in the United States sell 

renovated mattresses, which may 

account for 2.5 to 5 million units, or 

between 10 and 20 percent of mattresses 

sold. Thus, there may be as many as 

approximately 400 manufacturing firms 

subject to 16 CFR part 1632. These firms 

comprise more than 600 production 

establishments. Larger manufacturers 

may offer dozens of models (not 

counting different size designations, 

e.g., twin, full, queen, king) at any given 

time; new models may be introduced 

once or twice per year. Many smaller 

firms market only a few models and 

make few, if any, construction changes 

in a year. 

2. The Mattress Standard 

The mattress standard at 16 CFR part 

1632 requires premarket, full-scale 

prototype testing for each new mattress 

design. Prototype testing also must be 

performed for each change in materials 

of an existing design that may affect 

cigarette ignition resistance. Under the 

Standard, a minimum of 18 cigarettes 

(i.e., about one pack) are consumed per 

mattress surface. Under the CPSC’s 2006 

interim enforcement policy, two 

mattress surfaces must be tested (the 

Standard specifies that six surfaces must 

be tested; however, current reported 

practice is to test two surfaces). For twosided, traditional mattresses, one 

mattress is consumed per prototype. 

With the market trend in recent years 

toward single-sided mattresses (i.e., 

those designed not to be flipped), it is 

much more common that two mattresses 

are consumed per prototype. In either 

case, at least 36 cigarettes (i.e., about 

two packs) are consumed per prototype. 

No post-prototype, periodic testing is 

required under 16 CFR part 1632. 

However, the Standard allows the use of 

‘‘subordinate’’ prototypes (i.e., a mattress 

that differs from the prototype in certain 

acceptable ways and therefore does not 

need to be tested) based on a 

confirmatory test of a complying model, 

such that multiple producers can market 

that same complying product in 

different production facilities or under 

different brand names. This practice is 

common in the industry among 

licensees, and especially among smaller 

firms that manufacture models based on 

qualified prototypes developed and 

tested for certification of compliance 

with both 16 CFR part 1633 and part 

1632 by larger firms or ‘‘prototype 

developers.’’ Further, 16 CFR part 1632 

allows substitutions of cover or ‘‘ticking’’ 

materials, based on a set of small scale 

classification tests in lieu of new 

prototypes for each ticking. In this test, 

9 to 18 cigarettes (approximately one 

half to one full pack) are consumed. 

Equivalency of performance for a 

majority of new mattress models is 

demonstrated using this optional ticking 

substitution test. 

Some manufacturers perform tests 

pursuant to 16 CFR part 1632 in their 

production facilities. Most, however, 

use third party testing laboratories since 

the advent of 16 CFR part 1633 in 2006. 

3. Potential Benefits and Costs 

The SRM cigarette described in the 

proposal would have approximately the 

same ignition strength characteristics as 

originally intended by the Standard. 

The use of SRM cigarettes would not 

alter the stringency of the flammability 

performance tests in the Standard, so 

the proposal would not amend the test 

method itself. 

i. Potential Benefits 

Because the proposed amendment is 

‘‘safety-neutral,’’ mattresses that passed 

or failed under the existing Standard 

would be expected to generate similar 

results when the NIST-developed SRM 

is used. The level of protection provided 

by the Standard would neither increase 

nor decrease as a result. Thus, there 

would be no impact on the level or 

value of fire safety benefits derived from 

the 16 CFR part 1632 Standard. 

There would, however, be potential 

benefits associated with the proposed 

amendment that are not readily 

quantifiable. Currently, manufacturers 

and testing laboratories do not have 

access to continued supplies of test 

cigarettes other than RIP Pall Mall 

cigarettes. Existing inventories of 

conventional Pall Mall cigarettes have 

been depleted or exhausted. Many 

industry representatives have requested 

guidance on the issue of which cigarette 

to use in testing. 

Even if continuing supplies of 

conventional test cigarettes were 

available, the variability in cigarette 

performance described in the NIST 

research may lead to an unacceptably 

low level of test outcome 

reproducibility. This is causing 

uncertainty among testing firms and 

manufacturers and importers certifying 

compliance with the Standard; these 

firms have expressed concern that tests 

conducted by the CPSC and by industry 

may not be comparable. This 

inconsistency could lead to unnecessary 

additional testing. The proposed 

amendment specifying an SRM cigarette 

would reduce inconsistency and 

uncertainty for industry, testing 

laboratories, and the CPSC. 

ii. Potential Costs 

Currently, manufacturers incur testing 

costs related to 16 CFR part 1632 

whenever new mattress models are 

introduced that either: (1) Are of new 

construction, or (2) have new tickings 

that may influence cigarette ignition 

resistance. Larger manufacturers may 

introduce 20 or more new constructions 

or ticking substitutions each year. 

Smaller producers and renovators 

probably introduce fewer items or rely 

on prototype developers for multiple 

models. Assuming that qualified 

prototypes are developed for all new 

constructions and ticking substitutions 

to demonstrate compliance, a range of 

estimates for annual prototypes and 

ticking substitutions can be used to 

project potential costs associated with 

the proposed amendment to incorporate 

SRM cigarettes into the Standard. 

Pre-Amendment Testing Costs. For 

most mattress models that require some 

kind of testing, the testing cost per 

model to manufacturers is comprised 

chiefly of: (1) The resource costs of 

producing the mattresses used for 

destructive testing, including shipping 

to a test laboratory; and (2) the 

laboratory’s fee for the testing service, 

which includes photographic and other 

records prepared by the test laboratory 

as well as the cigarettes consumed in 

testing. 

The cost of mattresses consumed in 

prototype testing may amount to 

approximately $400 for a typical twomattress test series (although the range 

can go much higher, to more than 

$1,000 per mattress for low-volume, 

specialty items). Prototype test charges 

reported by third party testing 

laboratories can vary widely, especially 

by location. For example, charges for 

tests performed in China tend to be 

significantly lower than charges for tests 

performed in the United States. Overall, 

these charges, which include the cost of 

the test cigarettes, may average about 

$250 per prototype (labor and material 

costs for manufacturers to perform their 

own tests may be similar). Thus, the 

current average total cost per mattress 

prototype may be roughly $400 + $250 

= $650. A ticking substitution test is 

simpler and much less expensive, 

requiring only small samples of ticking 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67051 

material, a reusable small-scale test 

apparatus, and a smaller number of 

cigarettes; the average total cost may be 

around $50. 

Testing costs incurred for prototypes 

and ticking substitutions can be 

allocated over a production run of 

mattresses. The cost per unit may vary 

with production volume, the mix of 

tests performed, and other factors. The 

examples below incorporate 

assumptions based on discussions with 

industry representatives. These 

examples illustrate some possible 

baseline cost differences for larger 

versus smaller firms: 

Typical example for a medium-tolarge producer: 

• 20 new models: 5 new 

constructions + 15 new tickings 

• 5 prototype tests @ $650 each = 

$3,250 

• 15 ticking substitution classification 

tests @ $50 each = $750 

• Total base year cost = $3,250 + $750 

= $4,000 

• Baseline testing cost for production 

run of 50,000 units = $0.08 per unit 

Typical example for a smaller 

producer: 

• 5 new models: 2 new constructions 

+ 3 new tickings 

• 2 prototype tests @ $650 each = 

$1,300 

• 3 ticking substitution classification 

tests @ $50 each = $150 

• Total base year cost = $1,300 + $150 

= $1,450 

• Baseline testing cost for production 

run of 5,000 units = $0.29 per unit 

These examples reflect the likely 

average annual testing costs to industry, 

assuming reasonably full compliance 

with 16 CFR part 1632. Thus, 

approximate baseline testing costs for 

the largest 50 mattress manufacturers 

would be about 50 × $4,000 = $200,000 

annually; testing costs for the remaining 

350 firms would be about 350 × $1,450 

= $507,500. Thus, total estimated 

baseline testing costs may be about 

$200,000 + $507,500 = $707,500 per 

year. 

Costs per Firm Associated With the 

Proposed Amendment. The only cost 

increase associated with the proposed 

amendment is related to the SRM 

cigarettes. The anticipated price of SRM 

cigarettes from NIST is about $245 per 

carton, including estimated typical 

shipping (a carton contains 200 

cigarettes, i.e., 10 packs of 20). Testing 

laboratories and others can obtain (RIP) 

Pall Mall cigarettes currently on the 

market for prices ranging from $60 to 

$100 per carton, depending on the 

geographic region. Thus, the cost of 

cigarettes for parties performing tests 

may increase from as little as 

approximately $6 to $10 per pack, to as 

much as approximately $25 per pack, 

representing an increase of $15 to $19 

per pack. 

Under the protocol in 16 CFR part 

1632, new packs of cigarettes are 

opened for each test sequence. A new 

prototype or confirmatory test consumes 

about two packs, and a ticking 

substitution test consumes about one 

pack. Assuming an increase in price per 

pack of $19, the average cost of 

performing the tests could increase by 2 

× 19 = $38 per prototype and $19 per 

ticking substitution. This represents a 6 

percent increase ($38/$650) in average 

total resource costs per prototype, and a 

38 percent increase ($19/$50) in average 

resource costs per ticking substitution. 

In the above ‘‘typical producer’’ 

examples, the larger firm with 20 new 

models would incur increased prototype 

costs of 5 × $38 = $190 plus increased 

ticking substitution costs of 15 × $19 = 

$285, for a total annual increase of $190 

+ $285 = $475 (about 12 percent of the 

firm’s overall $4,000 annual testing 

cost). Over a 50,000 unit production 

run, the cost would be $0.0095 (i.e., less 

than one cent) per unit. The smaller 

firm with five new models would incur 

increased prototype costs of 2 × $38 = 

$76 and increased ticking substitution 

costs of 3 × 19 = $57, for a total annual 

increase of $76 + $57 = $133 (i.e., about 

9 percent of the firm’s overall $1,450 

annual testing cost). Over a 5,000 unit 

production run, the increased testing 

cost would be $0.027 (i.e., less than 

three cents) per mattress. 

In summary, the expected additional 

cost of testing related to the proposal 

may range from about $133 to $475 per 

firm, or about one to three cents per 

mattress produced. The distribution of 

this projected cost among manufacturers 

and testing laboratories is uncertain 

because some test laboratories may 

choose to pass their increased costs—in 

the form of higher test fees—on to 

manufacturers, while others may not. 

Even if all such costs were passed on to 

manufacturers, it is unlikely that there 

would be a noticeable effect on 

wholesale or retail mattress prices. 

Aggregate Costs Associated With the 

Proposed Amendment. There may be as 

many as 200 new product 

manufacturers and 200 renovators, for a 

total of about 400 firms. The largest 50 

firms are assumed to have 20 new 

models (50 × 20 = 1,000 models to be 

tested), and the remaining 350 firms to 

have five new models (350 × 5 = 1,750 

models to be tested), for a total of 1,000 

+ 1,750 = 2,750 models to be tested. The 

aggregate annual cost of the proposed 

amendment will vary with the number 

of new prototypes and ticking 

substitutions. A point estimate can be 

developed using the pre amendment 

baseline examples above and the best 

available information on these variables. 

Using the baseline assumptions for 

new prototypes versus ticking 

substitutions, the 50 largest firms would 

have an average of five prototypes each 

(for a total of 5 × 50 = 250) and the 

remaining 350 smaller firms would have 

two prototypes each (for a total of 2 × 

350 = 700); thus, the overall number of 

prototypes to be performed would be 

250 + 700 = 950. The number of ticking 

substitutions would be 15 each for the 

larger firms (for a total of 15 × 50 = 750) 

and three each for the smaller firms (for 

a total of 3 × 350 = 1,050); the overall 

number of ticking substitutions would 

be 750 + 1,050 = 1,800. 

At two packs of cigarettes per 

prototype and one pack per ticking 

substitution, the estimated quantity 

consumed in testing would be 2 × 950 

= 1,900 for prototypes and 1,800 for 

ticking substitutions, for a total of 1,900 

+ 1,800 = 3,700 packs. At an increase of 

$19 per pack, the estimated total 

resource cost would be 3,700 × 19 = 

$70,300. This point estimate represents 

an unweighted average increase of about 

10 percent of the estimated $707,500 

aggregate annual industry testing costs 

related to 16 CFR part 1632. 

In addition to the projected costs to 

industry, the CPSC and other 

government agencies (for example, the 

California Bureau of Home Furnishings 

& Thermal Insulation and the Canadian 

Ministry of Health) would likely 

purchase small quantities of SRM 

cigarettes from NIST for compliance 

testing and related research. Thus, the 

proposal also would have minor costs to 

Federal and other government agencies, 

depending on the numbers of tests these 

organizations may perform in any given 

year. 

The proposed effective date of the 

amendment is one year from the date of 

publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register. New mattress models are 

typically introduced once or twice per 

year. The proposed effective date would 

allow this product cycle to proceed 

without potential disruption or 

additional testing costs. It would also 

help ensure continuing availability of an 

adequate supply of SRM cigarettes to 

testing laboratories and manufacturers 

from NIST. 

In summary, the proposed 

amendment to specify the SRM cigarette 

is not expected to have a significant 

impact on expected benefits or costs of 

the Standard in 16 CFR part 1632. 

Resource costs may amount to roughly 

$70,000 per year. The amendment 

would, however, reduce test variability 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and uncertainty among manufacturers 

subject to the Standard and among 

testing organizations. Both the expected 

benefits and likely economic costs of the 

amendment are small, and the likely 

effect on testing costs per new prototype 

mattress or ticking substitution would 

be minor, especially when the projected 

cost is allocated over a production run 

of complying mattresses. 

4. Regulatory Alternatives 

The Commission could consider two 

basic alternatives to the proposed 

amendment: (1) Base the standard test 

cigarette on a different SRM, with the 

approximate lower ignition strength of 

an RIP cigarette; or (2) take no action on 

the smoldering ignition source issue. 

Neither the proposed amendment nor 

either of these two alternatives would 

likely have a substantial economic 

impact. There would, however, be some 

relative differences in terms of resource 

costs and potential effects on the level 

of benefits the Standard affords. The 

advantages and disadvantages of these 

two basic alternatives are discussed 

immediately below. 

a. Alternate SRM 

Under this first alternative, the 

Commission could amend the Standard 

to specify a different, lower ignition 

propensity SRM cigarette. Such an SRM 

would presumably be closer in ignition 

strength to the ‘‘worst-case’’ RIP 

cigarettes currently on the market. 

There are three possible advantages to 

specifying an alternative SRM: (1) The 

problem of test repeatability and 

reproducibility would be addressed, as 

it is under the proposed amendment; (2) 

an alternative SRM would, in theory, 

better approximate the fire risk 

associated with cigarettes currently 

available to consumers in the United 

States; and (3) currently, there is a low 

ignition propensity SRM (SRM 1082) 

developed by NIST for use by state 

regulators in assessing the compliance 

of RIP cigarettes. These SRM cigarettes 

are currently available at a price, 

including estimated typical shipping, of 

$195 per carton (compared to the 

projected price for the proposed SRM 

1196 cigarette of $245 per carton). Thus, 

resource costs to manufacturers and 

testing laboratories (including the CPSC) 

to adopt a readily-available alternative 

SRM could be somewhat lower than 

under the proposed amendment; 

although it is likely that any new 

alternate SRM would be priced at least 

comparably to the proposed SRM 1196. 

There are three possible 

disadvantages to specifying an 

alternative SRM. First, in comparison to 

the proposed SRM, a low ignition 

propensity SRM would not be 

considered equivalent or ‘‘safety 

neutral,’’ under the presumption that the 

use of such cigarettes would result in a 

less stringent flammability test. While 

no data are available to describe the 

extent of this potential difference, it is 

quite possible that more mattress 

construction prototypes would pass a 

test using a lower ignition propensity 

SRM than do currently with 

commercially available cigarettes. This 

may result in an unknown, but 

potentially adverse, impact on the level 

of safety benefits provided by the 

Standard. 

The second disadvantage is that the 

two known technical approaches to 

developing a lower ignition propensity 

SRM appear to be incompatible with the 

test in 16 CFR part 1632. First, under 

existing state regulations, all known 

commercial RIP cigarettes incorporate 

banded paper designed to impede full 

length burns. The current test measures 

mattress ignitions resulting from full 

length cigarette burns and allows up to 

three relights per cigarette to achieve a 

full length burn. It is likely that either: 

(1) Many low ignition propensity 

cigarettes would be wasted in 

completing the test; or (2) the test could 

not be reliably completed using bandedpaper, self-extinguishing cigarettes. 

Second, while the existing SRM 1082 

does not use banded-paper technology, 

it would have the same impracticalities 

as the banded-paper cigarette under the 

current Standard. The low ignition 

propensity design of the existing SRM 

1082 is intended to yield a 12 to 15 

percent full length burn rate (i.e., the 

cigarettes are made to self-extinguish 85 

to 88 percent of the time). Because this 

SRM is intended to be used as a 

calibration tool for cigarette 

manufacturers subject to state 

regulations, it is purposely designed to 

represent a minimal ignition propensity 

target, rather than a typical or 

representative RIP ignition propensity. 

It would clearly not represent a ‘‘worstcase’’ RIP cigarette. Further, SRM 1082 

does not meet the specified physical 

criteria for cigarette length and density; 

so these cigarettes are physically unlike 

the current test cigarette or current RIP 

cigarettes. 

The third disadvantage is that the 

properties of a new SRM that would 

mimic the ignition behavior of ‘‘worst 

case’’ RIP cigarettes have not been 

characterized. The ‘‘worst case’’ RIP 

cigarette would be one that burns its full 

length and may, therefore, be similar to 

its non-RIP counterpart. Insufficient 

research exists to support a new and 

different, low ignition propensity SRM; 

and a variety of as-yet-unknown 

modifications to the test method in 16 

CFR part 1632 would likely be needed 

to incorporate such an SRM. The time 

and cost to develop a new SRM is 

undetermined, but the existing concern 

about the short-term availability of a 

consistent ignition source would not be 

resolved. 

Thus, while a lower ignition strength 

SRM cigarette may be technically 

feasible, there is no readily available 

SRM alternative that would address the 

need for a consistent, ‘‘safety-neutral’’ 

ignition source. 

b. No Action 

Under the second alternative, the test 

cigarette specifications in the Standard 

would remain unchanged. 

Manufacturers and testers would remain 

free to conduct tests with any available 

cigarettes, including RIP Pall Malls, 

which meet the existing physical 

parameters. 

The possible advantage of the 

Commission taking no action is that the 

projected minor increase in resource 

costs of testing would not be incurred. 

The possible disadvantage of the 

Commission taking no action would be 

that the basic issue of test result 

variability due to differences in 

cigarettes would not be addressed, and 

the uncertainty and confusion 

surrounding the reliability of tests for 

compliance with 16 CFR part 1632 

would not be reduced. Manufacturers 

and testing firms may continue to 

conduct tests that are either wasteful (in 

terms of extra RIP cigarettes required to 

complete a test) or have irreproducible 

results. 

In summary, there are no readily 

available and/or, technically feasible 

alternatives to the proposed amendment 

that would have lower estimated costs 

and still address the need for a 

consistent ignition source that retains 

the ‘‘safety-neutral’’ approach of the 

proposed amendment. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency 

that engages in rulemaking generally 

must prepare initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analyses describing the 

impact of the rule on small businesses 

and other small entities. Section 605 of 

the RFA provides that an agency is not 

required to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule would retain the 

current mattress test procedure, but 

require that entities performing cigarette 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67053 

ignition tests (including the CPSC, other 

state agencies, and industry testing 

organizations) purchase and use SRM 

cigarettes at a higher cost than 

commercial, non-SRM cigarettes. No 

additional actions would be required of 

small entities. The costs associated with 

the proposed rule would essentially be 

borne by mattress manufacturers and 

importers that perform (or pay fees for) 

compliance testing. 

The latest available (2002) U.S. 

Census Bureau Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses and (2003) Economic Census 

data on this industry sector reported 

over 500 firms and more than 600 

manufacturing establishments in NAICS 

sector code 337910, Mattress 

Manufacturing. More recent industry 

estimates suggest that the number of 

firms, including renovators, is closer to 

400. The few industry-leading 

manufacturers are large firms with 

annual gross revenues of more than $1 

billion and 3,000–5,000 employees 

each. However, the vast majority of 

producers—including all renovators— 

are much smaller, with annual gross 

revenues of under $20 million and 

fewer than 100 employees each. Many 

manufacturers serve regional markets 

and do not have nationwide 

distribution. The Economic Census 

reported that all but the largest 12 

mattress producing firms—more than 95 

percent—had fewer than 500 

employees. These would be considered 

small businesses under the definition 

used by the Small Business 

Administration for this industry. 

The larger firms are often comprised 

of multiple small manufacturing 

establishments. The average gross 

revenue of the 585 small manufacturing 

establishments identified in 2002 was 

about $8.1 million. Excluding small 

establishments with more than 100 

employees from this average provides a 

reasonable approximation of small firms 

that are independent of the major 

producers. This approach reduces the 

average gross revenue to about $4 

million. This $4 million average can be 

used to illustrate the potential effect of 

the proposed rule on small firms. 

As discussed in the cost analysis 

section above, added testing and 

certification costs related to the 

proposed rule may average about $133 

per small firm, or less than three cents 

per unit. This represents about $133/$4 

million = .0033 percent (i.e., less than 

one percent) of small firms’ average 

gross revenues. Even using the $475 

increased cost estimate presented in the 

analysis for larger firms, the impact on 

small firms’ average gross revenue 

would be only $475/$4 million = .012 

percent. 

Based on this information, the 

proposal would have little or no effect 

on small producers because the design 

and construction of existing, compliant 

mattress products would remain 

unchanged and because the resource 

cost increase of using SRM cigarettes 

would represent a minimal increase in 

total testing costs. Thus, the 

Commission preliminarily concludes 

that the proposed rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses or other 

small entities. 

F. Environmental Considerations 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations and 

CPSC procedures for environmental 

review, the Commission has assessed 

the possible environmental effects 

associated with the proposed rule. 

The Commission’s regulations state 

that amendments to rules providing 

performance requirements for consumer 

products normally have little or no 

potential for affecting the human 

environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). 

Nothing in this proposed rule alters that 

expectation. Therefore, because the 

proposed amendment would have no 

adverse effect on the environment, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

G. Executive Orders 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

in clear language the preemptive effect, 

if any, of new regulations. The proposed 

rule, if finalized, would modify a 

flammability standard issued under the 

FFA. With certain exceptions that are 

not applicable in this instance, no state 

or political subdivision of a state may 

enact or continue in effect ‘‘a 

flammability standard or other 

regulation’’ applicable to the same fabric 

or product covered by an FFA standard 

if the state or local flammability 

standard or other regulations is 

‘‘designed to protect against the same 

risk of the occurrence fire’’ unless the 

state or local flammability standard or 

regulation ‘‘is identical’’ to the FFA 

standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1476(a). The 

proposed rule would not alter the 

preemptive effect of the existing 

mattress standard. 

Thus, the proposed rule would 

preempt nonidentical state or local 

flammability standards for mattresses or 

mattress pads designed to protect 

against the same risk of the occurrence 

of fire. 

H. Effective Date 

Section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 

1193(b)) provides that an amendment of 

a flammability standard shall become 

effective one year from the date it is 

promulgated, unless the Commission 

finds for good cause than an earlier or 

later effective date is in the public 

interest, and the Commission publishes 

the reason for that finding. Section 4(b) 

of the FFA also requires that an 

amendment of a flammability standard 

shall exempt products ‘‘in inventory or 

with the trade’’ on the date the 

amendment becomes effective, unless 

the Commission limits or withdraws 

that exemption because those products 

are so highly flammable that they are 

dangerous when used by consumers for 

the purpose for which they are 

intended. The Commission concludes 

that a one-year effective date is 

appropriate to ensure ample time for the 

product cycle and continuing 

availability of SRM cigarettes from 

NIST. Therefore, the Commission 

proposes that the amendment to the 

ignition source provision of the 

standard would become effective one 

year after publication of a final 

amendment in the Federal Register. 

I. Proposed Findings 

Section 4(a) and (j)(2) of the FFA 

require the Commission to make certain 

findings when it issues or amends a 

flammability standard. The Commission 

must find that the standard or 

amendment: (1) Is needed to adequately 

protect the public against the risk of the 

occurrence of fire leading to death, 

injury, or significant property damage; 

(2) is reasonable, technologically 

practicable, and appropriate; (3) is 

limited to fabrics, related materials, or 

products which present unreasonable 

risks; and (4) is stated in objective 

terms. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b). In addition, 

the Commission must find that: (1) If an 

applicable voluntary standard has been 

adopted and implemented, that 

compliance with the voluntary standard 

is not likely to adequately reduce the 

risk of injury, or compliance with the 

voluntary standard is not likely to be 

substantial; (2) that benefits expected 

from the regulation bear a reasonable 

relationship to its costs; and (3) that the 

regulation imposes the least 

burdensome alternative that would 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. 

Because section 4(a) of the FFA refers to 

proceedings for the determination of an 

appropriate flammability standard ‘‘or 

other regulation or amendment,’’ and 

because this proposed rule would be a 

technical amendment rather than a new 

flammability standard, for purposes of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

this section of the preamble, we will 

refer to the proposed rule as a ‘‘proposed 

amendment.’’ These findings are 

discussed below. 

The amendment to the Standard is 

needed to adequately protect the public 

against unreasonable risk of the 

occurrence of fire. The current Standard 

specifies as the ignition source 

cigarettes that are no longer being 

produced. In order for the Standard to 

continue to be effective (and for labs to 

test mattresses and mattress pads to 

determine whether they comply with 

the Standard), it is necessary to change 

the ignition source specification. The 

proposed amendment is necessary to 

ensure that the testing is reliable and 

that results will not vary from one lab 

or manufacturer to another. Such 

variation would be likely if labs or 

manufacturers were able to use different 

ignition sources that have similar 

physical properties but different 

burning characteristics. 

The amendment to the Standard is 

reasonable, technologically practicable, 

and appropriate. The proposed 

amendment is based on technical 

research conducted by NIST, which 

established that the SRM cigarette is 

capable of providing reliable and 

reproducible results in flammability 

testing of mattresses and mattress pads. 

The proposed SRM represents an 

equivalent, safety-neutral ignition 

source for use in testing to establish 

compliance with the Standard. 

The amendment to the Standard is 

limited to fabrics, related materials, and 

products that present an unreasonable 

risk. The proposed amendment would 

continue to apply to the same products 

as the existing Standard. 

Voluntary standards. There is no 

applicable voluntary standard for 

mattresses. The proposal would amend 

an existing Federal mandatory standard. 

Relationship of benefits to costs. 

Amending the Standard to specify SRM 

cigarettes as the ignition source would 

allow testing to the Standard to 

continue without interruption, would 

maintain the effectiveness of the 

Standard, and would not significantly 

increase testing costs to manufacturers 

and importers of mattresses and 

mattress pads. Thus, there is a 

reasonable relationship between 

benefits and costs of the proposed 

amendment. Both expected benefits and 

costs of the proposed amendment are 

likely to be small. The likely effect on 

testing costs would be minor. 

Least burdensome requirement. No 

other alternative would allow the 

Standard’s level of safety and 

effectiveness to continue. Thus, the 

proposed amendment imposes the least 

burdensome requirement that would 

adequately address the risk of injury. 

J. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Commission preliminarily finds that 

amending the mattress flammability 

standard (16 CFR part 1632) to specify 

SRM cigarettes as the ignition source is 

needed to adequately protect the public 

against the unreasonable risk of the 

occurrence of fire leading to death, 

injury, and significant property damage. 

The Commission also preliminarily 

finds that the amendment to the 

Standard is reasonable, technologically 

practicable, and appropriate. The 

Commission further finds that the 

amendment is limited to the fabrics, 

related materials, and products that 

present such unreasonable risks. 

K. References 

1. Gann, R.G., and Hnetkovsky E.J., 

Modification of ASTM E 2187 for 

Measuring the Ignition Propensity of 

Conventional Cigarettes, Technical Note 

1627, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899, 2009. 

2. Directorate for Economic Analysis 

Report, Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis: Smoldering Ignition Source 

Draft Proposed Technical Amendment 

to the Flammability Standard for 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads (16 CFR 

part 1632). 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1632 

Consumer protection, Flammable 

materials, Labeling, Mattresses and 

mattress pads, Records, Textiles, 

Warranties. 

For the reasons given above, the 

Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR 

part 1632 as follows: 

PART 1632—STANDARD FOR THE 

FLAMMABILITY OF MATTRESSES 

AND MATTRESS PADS (FF 4–72, 

AMENDED) 

1. The authority citation for part 1632 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193, 1194; 15 U.S.C. 

2079(b). 

2. Section 1632.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1632.4 Mattress test procedure. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Ignition source. The ignition 

source shall be National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (‘‘NIST’’) 

Standard Reference Material (‘‘SRM’’) 

1196, available for purchase from the 

National Institute for Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27504 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1308 

[Docket No. DEA–344P] 

Listing of Approved Drug Products 

Containing Dronabinol in Schedule III 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule is issued 

by the Deputy Administrator of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

modify the listing of the Marinol®

formulation in schedule III so that 

certain generic drug products are also 

included in that listing. 

Several products are currently the 

subject of Abbreviated New Drug 

Applications (ANDAs) under review by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA). Each product is a generic 

formulation of Marinol® and contains 

dronabinol, the (-) isomer of delta-9- 

(trans)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 

which is a schedule I controlled 

substance. Due to variations in 

formulation, these generic Marinol®

products do not meet the specific 

conditions specified in the current 

schedule III listing. 

This proposed action expands the 

schedule III listing to include 

formulations having naturally-derived 

dronabinol and products encapsulated 

in hard gelatin capsules. This would 

have the effect of transferring the FDAapproved versions of such generic 

Marinol® products from schedule I to 

schedule III. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before January 

3, 2011. Commenters should be aware 

that the electronic Federal Docket 

Management System will not accept 

comments after midnight Eastern Time 

on the last day of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling 

of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket 

No. DEA–344’’ on all written and 

electronic correspondence. Written 

comments sent via regular or express 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1